Hi there, Dembski students! Just over a month to go to finish your project!

Please read the first post of this thread and then go ahead and ask your question. I'm sure we'll have the required number of words posted in no time at all! (Though we do request that the majority of these words be original to you, rather than the cut-and-pasted words of others.)

Oh, and please feel free to ignore anything that the poster named "Louis" puts up. He comes from a Very Special Place, and I'm told he really can't help it.

Mr. Ames, you finally get your chance to engage with a student of the oh-so famous “Dr. Dr. D” as you refer to him.

First, I would like start off by offering my gratitude for the place to come and offer up questions in regards to, well, Dr. Dembski for one (since you seem to have such an extensive knowledge about him); and secondly about science and evolutionary theory (assuming the later are the types of questions you are seeking?)

Unfortunately, I do not have such an extensive knowledge of Dembski’s background as you; however, I do meet with the man for several hours every week. (That has to count for something, right?) But, do know that comments and questions about him and his past actions are of no consequence to me.

I think a good place to start might be with the questions you posed in your previous post. Several of your questions deal with Dembski’s past events, of which I do not wish to specifically entertain due to previously mentioned reasons. However, I will comment on the first question you posed.

When Dembski mentioned in his syllabus (which I see you’ve got your hands on) these sites (like this one) will “open your eyes;” I understood him to mean that we will come to realize that the “scientific” community at large are not so receptive to alternate theories to evolution. Furthermore, they tend to be more tenacious about refuting even the thought of some sort of Creationism/Intelligent Design. (Of which I take you to be the opposite beings you seem so anxious to receive any questions I might have, but I guess we’ll see.) Dembski has in fact mentioned “respectful treatment” in so many words. From my class experience thus far, he is very respectful and seeks to explain the various viewpoints many mainstream scientists hold (ie: Francis Collins, Dawkins, Behe, Gould, etc.). However, after reading several forums, responses to Dembski’s work, and a few other things, I have found that the environment is not as objective when seeking truth in science. (For example, look at this post up until my own. They are either full of conniving remarks about Dembski’s past actions or babblings about receiving a post from me (a student). It is these types of posts that are there to “open your eyes.” (Although, I am not so naive to realize that people (in general) are like this, no matter what the topic.)

Unfortunately I cannot comment on your second question as I am not as read-up on the Kitzmiller v Dover case as I should. My assumption would be that Dembski has perfectly good reason for the action he took (if you’d like I can ask him :) ).

In response to your third question, I would first like to know from where you got your citation of Dembski stating that there is “some kind of Scientific Conspiracy” that is suppressing the ideas he advocates in Intelligent Design? Then I might be able to assist in finding the answer to your question.

In response to your fourth question: This seems to be the mantra of anyone who holds to a view that is not the mainstream perspective or the most acceptable among those in higher authority. In other words, the minority view tends to be seen as the one being preached among only those who will believe it. One of the things that would hold anyone from promoting a minority/adversarial viewpoint (especially in the scientific community) that would combat the mainstream viewpoint, subjects themselves to the chance of “committing intellectual suicide.” I’m not suggesting that Dembski has done this, but it would appear that his chances for a full-on proliferation of ID in the scientific community are slim to none, so long as evolution is the dominant theory to be held. Furthermore, Dembski’s only method of engaging his ideas is not always among those who would agree with him.

I think that is enough about Dembski for a bit. One might think the class was primarily about him.

If I might pose a few questions myself:

1) Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? For example, just this past week I was listening to a radio broadcast taking questions/comments on the Texas textbook issues. A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution? The man erupted and was distraught at the idea of any separate (inaccurate – the man’s wording) theory being taught other than evolution. He confidently asserted that evolution was the ONLY and wholly ACCURATE theory. Why be so dogmatic against other views?

2) Most mainstream scientists that I have read so far would all agree to something of this effect: Creationists are irrational and fail to objectively look at scientific evidence. Help me understand how this might be true and if evolution proponents can live up to the same scrutiny?

All right, I’ve said plenty for the first post. I look forward to hearing your response. Note that I will do my best to respond to all of the reply posts I get to this one, because I imagine I am out-numbered here (me being the only student thus far..)

Also, to OgreMkV:

Dembski has the requirement in his syllabus for the purpose of discussion and sharing thoughts/ideas. I doubt that he is worried that any of his students might “lose their way” as you stated. Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? Haven’t you already then defeated the purpose of this forum?

Oh, and regarding your insolent comment about him administratively dropping his students, let’s be serious, stick to the forum’s purpose.

1) Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory?

Your premise is incorrect. Science accepts new data all the time, and scientific data that challenged current theories of evolution would have no problem. There are plenty of acrimonious disputes in real science, but eventually the most useful models prevail. If ID produced a more useful model than evolution, it (or whatever part made it useful) would eventually be accepted... unfortunately for ID proponents, ID currently doesn't produce any useful model of anything. Dressing "goddidit" up in some sciencey sounding jargon doesn't provide any useful insight.

Quote

A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution?

Here we get to the stuff that does trigger disgust, but this is not an irrational reaction. Creationism, whether in the ID flavor or otherwise, is not supported by any coherent scientific theory (if you believe there is a scientific theory of ID, please feel free to present it!) For those of us who value the scientific process, the attempt to pass off nonsense as science is directly contrary to our interests. The reaction you get when you try to get creationism into the science class is the same reaction you get from a doctor who sees a quack passing off some ineffective treatment off as a cure for cancer. Real science cures diseases. "Goddidit" does not.

Theistic evolution generally doesn't fall into this category, because it's proponents* don't try to pass it off as science. It doesn't belong in science class, because it's a theological or philosophical argument, but unlike ID, it's not an attack on the whole enterprise of rational inquiry.

* Ken Miller is a good example of this. Oh, and unlike Dembski, he showed up at Dover. His testimony is worth reading, as is the whole transcript. You can find it at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html Seriously, if you want to understand why most of the scientific world views ID as creationism in a cheap tux, it's a good place to start.

Finally, you will find a lot of snark and crude jokes on this forum. It's a place where people come to unwind, frequently by mocking creationists who have shown themselves to be immune to reason. If you wish to engage in a serious discussion, you are free to ignore responses which do not pertain to it. There are many here who will engage in serious discussion, as long as you do likewise. OTOH, if you show that you aren't capable of engaging in rational discussion (e.g. Robert Byers), then eventually all the responses you get will be mockery. If you want an excuse not to address serious questions, "OMG TEH MEANIE EVILUTIONISTS SAID NASTY THINGS" is ready made for you.

Dembski has in fact mentioned “respectful treatment” in so many words. From my class experience thus far, he is very respectful and seeks to explain the various viewpoints many mainstream scientists hold (ie: Francis Collins, Dawkins, Behe, Gould, etc.).

It's nice that Dembski's demeanor in class is sanguine. However, he isn't always so reserved. Check out his Intelligent Design Coming Clean essay, where he refers to yours truly as an "Internet stalker". Those of us who have seen this aspect of Dembski's behavior aren't so quick to give him a pass on it.

BJRay:

Quote

Unfortunately I cannot comment on your second question as I am not as read-up on the Kitzmiller v Dover case as I should. My assumption would be that Dembski has perfectly good reason for the action he took (if you’d like I can ask him :) ).

One of my treasured memories from 2005 is when Stephen Harvey called on Friday to say that Bill Dembski was withdrawn as a witness and would not be deposed as planned the following Monday. He told us that the last communication Pepper Hamilton had with the Thomas More Law Center was to inform them that Jeff Shallit and myself would be coming to assist Harvey in deposing Dembski. Coincidence? Perhaps, but also perhaps not.

BJRay:

Quote

Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? For example, just this past week I was listening to a radio broadcast taking questions/comments on the Texas textbook issues. A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution? The man erupted and was distraught at the idea of any separate (inaccurate – the man’s wording) theory being taught other than evolution. He confidently asserted that evolution was the ONLY and wholly ACCURATE theory. Why be so dogmatic against other views?

There is quite rational disgust for the unseemly way that the socio-political religious antievolution movement seeks to undermine science education in this country. Perhaps you have been misinformed about this?

Some explanations have gone through a process of having hypotheses generated, tested against empirical data, published in the technical literature, discussions concerning the ideas leading to refinement and further tests, and eventually the scientific community comes to accept the idea as having merit if it consistently passes tests, and discarded as implausible if it fails to consistently pass those tests. These are the concepts worthy of being taught in a science class. Evolutionary science meets that standard. The other conjectures you list (not theories; they are not anywhere close to having the status of theory) have not been through that process and do not have that status, and thus are not suitable to bring up in science class. After all, treating something that isn't science as if it were science is a recipe for sowing confusion about what science is.

In 2006, I had the opportunity to ask Dembski himself about whether "intelligent design" should get a pass on this process. I pointed that that "cold fusion", the archetypal not-ready-for-prime-time physics theory, had over 900 peer-reviewed articles on the topic, while the Discovery Institute's list of articles was still in the double digits. Nobody claims that public school K-12 students should be "taught the controversy" over cold fusion. Should ID get a pass? I transcribed Dembski's response, which is long but works out to be the same as Michael Ruse's immediate, "No."

BJRay:

Quote

Most mainstream scientists that I have read so far would all agree to something of this effect: Creationists are irrational and fail to objectively look at scientific evidence. Help me understand how this might be true and if evolution proponents can live up to the same scrutiny?

Religious antievolutionists are not always irrational; they quite commonly show areas where they perform quite well. Forrest Mims III is an excellent electronics engineer. John Baumgardner writes good modeling code for a national lab. But when it comes to the topic of evolution, religious antievolutionists seem not to be able to process the information in any way that can be considered scholarly. They make the most egregious misrepresentations repeatedly, which either indicates that they don't know what they criticize or that they are choosing to tell falsehoods knowingly. There is a tendency for religious antievolutionists to pass on and exaggerate material from other religious antievolutionists.

As for scientists living up to the sort of scrutiny that we'd hold religious antievolutionists to, please do check out the scientific literature. It is pretty common there to find extended debate over methodology and interpretation, and the amazing thing is that you can join in if you can get up to speed. However, getting up to speed often requires years of study and preparation in the field of interest, not just a weekend reading the latest propaganda book from the Discovery Institute crew.

BJRay:

Quote

Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth?

Part A: Past experience is not a perfect predictor of future performance, but it often works well as a guide.

Part B: I'm only speaking of science, not "truth" in the abstract. Science delivers knowledge with a degree of uncertainty. It is a limited enterprise, and gains much of its power because it is a limited enterprise.

On the other hand, I have no reservation in pointing out the rampant falsehoods promulgated from the religious antievolution movement. Correcting what is obviously wrong is a worthwhile endeavor in my opinion. You mileage may vary.

If you are interested in even more information about Dembski's ideas, you should read this. It is likely that you would get no response from Dembski other than a dismissal that the essay is somehow "out of date", even though he has not bothered to retract any of the stuff criticized there. Don't you think that if a claim has been made that is wrong, that an author should acknowledge the error and seek to correct it?

Do you have something that you wish to offer as an example of the class of items referenced above? It would seem that the criticism is moot if there is actually nothing in the class...

Let's split those up, actually. What would be most useful is to see if you can provide an actual example in eachthat stands up to scrutiny of (1) scientific data and (2) scientific theory that "combat evolutionary theory".

My prediction: you'll trot out something very like "bacterial flagellum" for (1) and "intelligent design" for (2). I'd be happy to be surprised, though.

In response to your third question, I would first like to know from where you got your citation of Dembski stating that there is “some kind of Scientific Conspiracy” that is suppressing the ideas he advocates in Intelligent Design?

There appears to be a conspiracy suppressing the disclosure of the values for the CSI in anything at all.

Bjray, if you want "intelligent design" taught as an alternative in schools one of the things you'd have to teach would be how to determine if something is designed.

To do that you need to determine the "CSI".

Is it possible you can demonstrate, or ask Dembski to do so, how to calculate the CSI in a range of objects?

Perhaps a bacterial flagellum? And a baseball? And a salt crystal?

Or pick something yourself, as long as the calculations are shown......

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory?

Answer: What "scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory"? As far as I know, there ain't no such animal. To be sure, there are various conjectures and assertions and suchlike which Creationists have presented as "combat(ting) evolutionary theory", but if you filter out everything which is based on misinterpretations and/or outright falsehoods, the residue simply doesn't contain anything which genuinely does "combat evolutionary theory". If you disagree with me here, I invite you to present something which you believe both (a) is not based on misinterpretations or falsehoods, and (b) genuinely "combat(s) evolutionary theory".You apparently are under the impression that ID genuinely does "combat evolutionary theory", but as far as I can tell, ID can be accurately (albeit cruelly) summarized in seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something. Do you think that terminally vague sentence can possibly pass muster as a 'theory'? I don't. If you disagree with me about the accuracy of my seven-word summary of ID, perhaps you could explain where it goes wrong? I am not optimistic that you'll be able to do so, based on the responses I got a while back when I asked this question in a different forum, but perhaps you can succeed where others have failed, eh?

Quote

Most mainstream scientists that I have read so far would all agree to something of this effect: Creationists are irrational and fail to objectively look at scientific evidence. Help me understand how this might be true and if evolution proponents can live up to the same scrutiny?

The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

So Creationists believe that the Word of God is true, end of discussion. Fine -- but there are many Christians who believe that God used evolution to create Earth's various species. These guys can be called 'theistic evolutionists', and for some reason, I kinda suspect that most (if not all) of them would affirm that the Word of God is true... so what's going on here? How come one set of Word-of-God-is-true believers accepts evolution, while a different set of word-of-God-is-true believers rejects evolution? Surely the Word of God is the same for both sets of believers, isn't it? The solution to this riddle: These two sets of believers differ in how they interpret the Word of God. The evolution-rejecters interpret the Word of God in such a way that they believe evolution conflicts with the Word of God; evolution-accepters, on t'other hand, interpret the Word of God in such a way that they believe evolution is not in conflict with the Word of God.So when Creationists make noise about how evolution contradicts God's Word, one of two things must be true: Either they're bearing false witness (because of all those other believers who do accept evolution), or else what they're really saying is that evolution contradicts the particular interpretation of God's Word which they happen to accept.All of which is well and good... but how do you know which interpretation of God's Word is true? Me, I think that the best way to do this is to compare that interpretation to the Work of God -- to the universe which He created. For instance, 2 Chron 4:2 says "Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Okay; let's see how hypothetical believer John Doe interprets that passage...

"It describes a circular pool ('round in compass') of molten metal, right? Since its shape is a circle, its diameter ('from brim to brim') is ten cubits, and its circumference ('compass it round about') is thirty cubits. The number pi is what you get when you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter; do that with this circle, and you get (30 / 10 =) 3. Therefore, the value of pi is exactly 3 -- none of this unGodly 3.14159... nonsense need apply, thank you very much, and anybody who thinks pi is 3.14159... is just wrong, end of discussion."Hmmm... but when I actually measure the circumference and diameter of a circle, I always get that bigger number, John."So what? The Word of God says that pi is exactly three! Are you telling me that the Word of God is wrong? Are you calling God Himself a liar!?"No, John, I'm not saying anything about God. I'm saying that when you measure the diameter and circumference of a circle, and you divide the circumference by the diameter, you don't end up with a result of exactly three. You must have made a mistake somewhere."So you are saying that God is a liar! It's there in black and white -- pi is exactly equal to three!"

Do you think John Doe is rational, bjray? I don't. I think he's decided that his personal interpretation of the Bible takes precedence over empirical, objectively determinable fact, and I think that's crazy. I think that when it comes to the value of pi, this Doe guy is seriously irrational. Do you disagree?Just as I think John Doe here is a bit of a nutbar when it comes to the value of pi, so do I think Creationists are seriously irrational when it comes to evolution. The problem is that you can interpret any piece of text, Biblical or not, in any bleedin' way you feel like... but science is constrained by Reality. See any problems there?

Quote

Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth?

I can't speak for anybody else, but I think that any evolution-denying statement from a Creationist is false for pretty much the same reason I think the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning. Every time I've been awake whilst the Sun came up, the Sun has always risen in the East; every time I've investigated an evolution-denying statement from a Creationist, that evolution-denying statement has always been either (a) incoherent, (b) false on its own terms, ( c ) falsely presented as a problem for evolution when, in fact, it's nothing of the kind, or (d) some combination of (a), (b), and ( c ).Always.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on your second question as I am not as read-up on the Kitzmiller v Dover case as I should. My assumption would be that Dembski has perfectly good reason for the action he took (if you’d like I can ask him :) ).

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition prior to Kitzmiller. Forrest's deposition is available on-line, I recall, and it's devastating in its scholastic thoroughness. I have it on authority that Dembski blanched visibly as the deposition proceeded and withdrew from the case shortly thereafter.

Yes, Dembski was all bully to put Darwin on Trial but when his opportunity came he ran like a scared little girl.

Nothing dishonorable about self-preservation, though. Dembski knew that Forrest was going to blow the case wide open, as she actually did later, and he simply didn't want to be part of the collateral damage.

I understood him to mean that we will come to realize that the “scientific” community at large are not so receptive to alternate theories to evolution.

That's incorrect; science is always interested in new explanations. The problem for Dembski et al. is that ID/Creationism is not a new explanation, it is an old and failed explanation. As far as ID/Creationism goes, the scientific community was receptive back in the 19th Century. Experiments, observations, successful predictions, etc have all combined since then to show that evolutionary theory is a better explanation than ID/Creationism. Dembski and his acolytes have added no new basic arguments, and, more importantly, no new data that would make it useful to revisit the defeat suffered by ID/Creationism in the late 19th Century.

Do you have new data or arguments that make phlogiston a better explanation than oxidation/reduction? No? Then we won't bother to revisit that defeat either.

The point is that new data will be required to make scientists pay attention to old controversies. Let us know when you, or Dembski, or Behe, or Minnich, or anyone else manages to come up with those data. Until then, ID/Creationism will be deservedly ignored. And if that revelation succeeds in "opening your eyes", so much the better.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

cubist: I grade your work as a "C". In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C". Enjoy.

edited

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

I think that is enough about Dembski for a bit. One might think the class was primarily about him.

To save Louis the trouble of posting, I think this is the only reasonable thing you wrote!

Sorry, can't stay. Must go out and buy a new irony meter.

You are nothing if not generous. May the heavens rain down beer upon thee...but not in steins that would just be silly and hurt.

Louis

P.S. Oh can't I take just one?

Quote

1) Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory? For example, just this past week I was listening to a radio broadcast taking questions/comments on the Texas textbook issues. A gentleman phoned in and suggested that evolution be the only theory taught (period). When the broadcaster questioned, why not teach theistic evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution? The man erupted and was distraught at the idea of any separate (inaccurate – the man’s wording) theory being taught other than evolution. He confidently asserted that evolution was the ONLY and wholly ACCURATE theory. Why be so dogmatic against other views?

This presumes the scientific validity of these "other views". What if, and this is an important question, they are not scientifically valid? I.e. they lack the data to support them. What if they are exactly as they've been shown to be, intellectually vacuous, previously well refuted claims couched in pseudoscientific jargon designed to gull the electorate and inculcate a specific narrow, religious doctrine into science?

If, and I stress the conditional, this is the case then should we scientists be "open minded" to these claims? Perhaps geologists and astronomers should reconsider their positions on a flat earth, a less than 10000 year old universe, and earth as the centre of the universe. Are they being dogmatic when they don't entertain these "other views" as science? Or are they just practising science as it should be done, i.e. with no view as to what is demonstrably true but rigour regarding how we claim something to be demonstrably true? The word "true" in the previous sentence is used in full awareness of the philosophical niceties and the limits of observation etc.

Perhaps the "irrational disgust" you claim exists (without evidence and support I note. Anecdote and personal interpretations are not evidence) is neither "disgust" nor "irrational".

On the issue of the emotion surrounding the issue, to use an example of Dawkins', imagine you are a classics scholar, an expert in the study of Ancient Rome, and you were frequently subjected to a relatively well organised and extremely popular (in some countries at least) denial of the existence of Ancient Rome (or variant twists on that theme). Is it possible that, among even the most patient and saintly of you and your colleagues, someone would let a teensy bit of frustration creep through now and again? It's an all too human failing. Sometimes, just sometimes, the frustration that creeps through is justified. Not always, just sometimes.

Now, cards on the table, why have I answered you in this way, why have I asked these questions? Because I doubt you have arrived at the position you clearly have arrived at by soberly studying the available evidence. In fact I have an advantage, I know it's impossible for you to have done so in exactly the same way I know a homeopath who claims that water has a memory hasn't studied chemistry in a sober, reasoned evidence based manner. If you wish to take umbrage at that or claim bias on my part, then that is your affair, and your problem. I suspect, however, the evidence is meaningless to you and entirely besides the point as far as you are concerned. I'm very happy to be wrong about that by the way. You, apparently, have been indoctrinated with the view that somehow evolutionary biology is in opposition to what I presume (perhaps wrongly) your religious faith is. This isn't necessarily the case, although for some religious positions it is undeniably so. If the latter is the case, I suggest you follow the words of the Dalai Lama as opposed to the actions of Kurt Wise.

Louis

ETA: The majority of the traffic here is humorous for a reason. IDC and it's ilk got old long ago. If the banter and frivolity disturbs you, or if you seek to use it to impugn the seriousness of the participants, or to cast irrelevant aspersions at science then you will get incredibly short shrift. Other people have said this better than I:

"By calling him humourless I mean to impugn his seriousness, categorically: such a man must rig up his probity ex nihilo."

Martin Amis, Experience (2000), Part I: "Failures of Tolerance"

"Nothing is more curious than the almost savage hostility that Humour excites in those who lack it."

cubist: I grade your work as a "C". In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C". Enjoy.

1) Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory?

If we leave aside Intelligent Design's political goals and instead concentrate on it's scientific merits, you will find that it falls short. Rather than writing a long essay, I'll link to a very good article by Elliott Sober that details why ID has severe problems when trying to make any predictions. This should be required reading for anyone wishing to evaluate how scientific ID really is.

Dear BJ, you ask why ID/creationists (IDiota) don't get any respect on science blogs. Here are some of my observations.

Failure to answer a simple question: How do you calculate CSI?

Some babble incoherently like Byers.

Some, like FL and IBIG, insist on their literal interpretation of the Bible being the only truth.

The misuse of real science, ie the second theory of thermodynamics.

The mental contortions required to make geology fit a 6000 year old earth with a noachian flood: - rocks are not really millions and billions of years old, God just made them look that way to fool us. - plate tectonics either doesn't exist or was much faster in the past. - claiming there is no place on earth where limestone is forming now so how can we say how long it takes to deposit 6 or 7000 feet of the stuff. - claiming the fossil record supports how dead organisms would have been deposited after a world wide flood.

Quotemining: The deliberate misquoting of evolution supporting scientists to make it appear that they support ID. for example Gould, Hawking. This "lying for Jesus" is especially reprehensible since in the internet age it is very easy to check what the author really said.

Lying through "cut and paste": individuals will try to argue their point with articles and links from places like aig or conservapedia without ever checking original sources. This is where you get the "Scientist sez" quotes like " Dr Joe sez chimps and humans are not related" and Dr Joe is a high school educated homeopath in Gunbarrel City, TX.

Deliberate misunderstanding of how science works. Scientists doing research are constantly producing new data. This data could be new fossils or mapping of the genome in a new organism or even the discovery of new organisms. This new data may fit smoothly in the paradigm or be outside the box. Scientists will argue and test and do more research to see where it fits or it may inspire a new research. This messy process does not cancel out the value of the conclusions.

Endless repetition of arguments that have been dismissed dozens of times before. I think the IDiota must have a play book because they argue the same things the same way time after time. I give Byers credit for being a creative babbler.

Deliberate "misunderstanding" of scientific terms such as transitional fossils. or misunderstanding common phrases such as Joe's "baseball sized rock" on another thread here.

And, unless you have independently read the works of evolutionary biologists, I doubt that you have any idea of what they are really saying. Certainly not if you would include Mike Behe in a list of "mainstream scientists."

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 16 2010,10:03

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

cubist: I grade your work as a "C". In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C". Enjoy.

cubist: I grade your work as a "C". In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C". Enjoy.

I will pray a Novena to The Designer, and sacrifice a virgin to Thor to atone.*

* Not really, but I thought about it. The virgin not the novena.

HA HA THIS IS YOU

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

cubist: I grade your work as a "C". In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C". Enjoy.